alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Daily Medical Equipment Distribution Center, Inc., as Assignee of JURCELIN GARCIA, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered February 11, 2014. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. </p><p>Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that, because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge attesting to the nonappearance of plaintiff for the independent medical examinations in question, defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied (<i>see Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. &amp; Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51123[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]; <i>Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co.</i>, 39 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50458[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]).</p><p>However, contrary to plaintiff's remaining contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (<a href="../2015/2015_04787.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.</i>, 25 NY3d 498</a> [2015]) or that defendant had issued timely denials of claim that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (<a href="../2010/2010_08933.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 78 AD3d 1168</a> [2010]; <a href="../2011/2011_51292.htm" target="_blank"><i>Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co.</i>, 32 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: November 01, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Charles H. Weidner, Respondent, *v.*George W. Olivit et al., Appellants.

(Argued April 22, 1907;

decided May 7, 1907.)

*Weidner*v. *Olivit,*108 App. Div. 122, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 11, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover an amount alleged to be due *612for produce shipped to defendants, who were commission merchants, for sale.

*Judson Q. Wells*for appellants.

*John J. Linson*and *Daniel B. Deyo*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Cli. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Werner and Willard Bartlett, JJ. Absent: Hiscook, J.
#### § 54.1904 Recordkeeping and audits.

Participants in the Affordable Connectivity Outreach Grant Program must maintain records to document compliance with the rules and requirements for the Outreach Grant Program in accordance with 2 CFR 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.338, as adopted at 2 CFR 6000.1, and shall provide that documentation to the Office of the Managing Director or any other FCC Bureau or Office, or their assigns, upon request in accordance with 2 CFR 200.337, as adopted at 2 CFR 6000.1.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 184 (Friday, September 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 55542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7987]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region 1--Maine District Advisory Council; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration Maine District Advisory 
Council, located in the geographical area of Augusta, Maine will hold a 
public meeting on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 starting at 10 a.m. The 
meeting will be held at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Maine 
District Office, 68 Sewall Street, 5th Floor, Augusta, Maine. The 
purpose of the meeting is to discuss such matters as may be presented 
by members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others 
present.
    For further information, write or call Mary McAleney, District 
Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, Maine District Office, 68 
Sewall Street, Room 512, Augusta, Maine 04330, (207) 622-8386 phone, 
(207) 622-8277 fax.

Thomas M. Dryer,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-7987 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JEFFREY W. THOMAS,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 441, 2016

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID 1403008516

§

§

Submitted: September 6, 2016

Decided: October 21, 2016

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 21st day of October 2016, upon consideration of the notice to 

show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Jeffrey Thomas, filed this appeal from a decision 

of the Superior Court, denying his motion for appointment of counsel to 

pursue a motion for postconviction relief. The Chief Deputy Clerk issued a 

notice to Thomas directing him to show cause why the appeal should not be 

dismissed for this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory

appeal in a criminal matter.
-2-

(2) Thomas filed a response to the notice to show cause on

September 6, 2016. The response addresses the merits of his appeal but does 

not address the interlocutory nature of the appeal.

(3) Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be 

reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.1The Court has no jurisdiction to 

entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order in a criminal matter.

2

(4) The Superior Court's August 8, 2016 order is an interlocutory

order. The denial of the motion for appointment of counsel is not appealable 

as a collateral order before the entry of a final judgment on any 

postconviction motion that Thomas may file.

3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

 Justice

 

1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).

2

Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998).

3 Harris v. State, 2013 WL 4858990 (Del. Sept. 10, 2013).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,627,768
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  726,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,354,394
<PP&E>                                      28,945,864
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,935,898
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,364,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          492,782
<BONDS>                                      7,780,603
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,090,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,364,360
<SALES>                                      4,939,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,526,797
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,060,941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             645,442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                820,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            820,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   820,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 12004V/AFI/DCL/43 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V/AFI/DCL/43

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - FINAL ACT - B. Declarations concerning Protocols annexed to the Constitution - Declarations by Member States - 43.Declaration by the Kingdom of the Netherlands on Article IV-440 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0473 - 0473 *

43. Declaration by the Kingdom of the Netherlands on Article IV-440

The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that an initiative for a European decision, as referred to in Article IV-440(7) aimed at amending the status of the Netherlands Antilles and/or Aruba with regard to the Union, will be submitted only on the basis of a decision taken in conformity with the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

--------------------------------------------------
Case 16-28949 Doc 79 Filed 12/23/18 Entered 12/23/18 17:14:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-28949 Doc 79 Filed 12/23/18 Entered 12/23/18 17:14:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
§ 221.33 Under what circumstances may the ALJ be disqualified? ( a ) The ALJ may withdraw from a case at any time the ALJ deems himself or herself disqualified.
( b ) At any time before issuance of the ALJ's decision, any party may move that the ALJ disqualify himself or herself for personal bias or other valid cause. ( 1 ) The party must file the motion promptly after discovering facts or other reasons allegedly constituting cause for disqualification.
( 2 ) The party must file with the motion an affidavit or declaration setting forth the facts or other reasons in detail.
( c ) The ALJ must rule upon the motion, stating the grounds for the ruling. ( 1 ) If the ALJ concludes that the motion is timely and meritorious, he or she must disqualify himself or herself and withdraw from the case.
( 2 ) If the ALJ does not disqualify himself or herself and withdraw from the case, the ALJ must continue with the hearing process and issue a decision.
# EUR-Lex - 11965F/PRO/PRI/20 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11965F/PRO/PRI/20

**TREATY ESTABLISHING A SINGLE COUNCIL AND A SINGLE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, CHAPTER VII: GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE 20 **

*
Official Journal 152 , 13/07/1967 P. 0016 *

++++

ARTICLE 20

ARTICLES 12 TO 15 AND ARTICLE 18 SHALL APPLY TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION .
# EUR-Lex - 12004V/PRO/27 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V/PRO/27

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - Protocols and Annexes - 27.Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0372 - 0372 *

27. PROTOCOL ON THE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING IN THE MEMBER STATES

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

CONSIDERING that the system of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following interpretative provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe:

Sole article

The provisions of the Constitution shall be without prejudice to the competence of Member States to provide for the funding of public service broadcasting insofar as such funding is granted to broadcasting organisations for the fulfilment of the public service remit as conferred, defined and organised by each Member State, and insofar as such funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent which would be contrary to the common interest, while the realisation of the remit of that public service shall be taken into account.

--------------------------------------------------
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5251

To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to require the Resolution

Trust Corporation to use competitive procedures in procuring property

and services necessary or appropriate to carry out its duties.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 1994

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to require

the Resolution Trust Corporation to use competitive procedures in procuring property and services necessary or

appropriate to carry out its duties.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Resolution Trust

5 Corporation Contract Reform Act’’.
2

•HR 5251 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO USE COMPETITIVE PROCE2 DURES.

3 Section 21A(b)(10)(A)(i) of the Federal Home Loan

4 Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(b)(10)(A)(i)) is amended by

5 adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘Notwith6 standing any other provision of law, the Corporation shall

7 use competitive procedures (as such term is defined in sec8 tion 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act)

9 in procuring any property and services necessary or appro10 priate to carry out its responsibilities under this section

11 and entering into contracts for such property and

12 services.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


Cross Timbers Oil Company
Fort Worth, Texas

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-64274, 33-65238
and 33-81766) of Cross Timbers Oil Company of our report dated March 13, 1997,
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cross Timbers Oil Company for the
year ended December 31, 1996.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
March 19, 1997
#### W. L. E. Green, appellant, v. H. G. Hoops, appellee.

Filed April 17, 1913.

No. 17,120.

1. Appeal: Docketing Appeal: Duty oe Clerk. It is the duty of the clerk of the district court, upon receiving in due time a proper transcript of the proceedings of the county court in an action determined therein, to file the transcript and docket the appeal.

2. -: -: Jurisdiction: Fees. Where the clerk of the district court in due time receives and retains without objection a proper transcript of the proceedings of the county court in an action determined therein, and files the same in his office, he cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the district court by refusing to docket the appeal, on the sole ground that part of the fees remains unpaid, no demand for the balance having been made.

Appeal from tbe district court for Buffalo county: Bruno O. Hostetler, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Frank E. Beeman,*for appellant.

*H. A, Brubaker, contra.*

*572Rose, J.

The action was commenced in the county court of Buffalo county to recover a bill of $80.25 for rejected nursery goods. Plaintiff prevailed. Defendant appealed to the district court, where plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it had not been docketed within the statutory period of 30 days after rendition of judgment. The motion was overruled. Plaintiff stood upon his motion, refused to plead further, and the district court dismissed his suit. From the judgment of dismissal, plaintiff has appealed.

Should the motion have been sustained? No other question is presented. The judgment of the county court was rendered May 10, 1910. The following is found among the appearance docket entries of the case in the office of the clerk of the district court: “Case not docketed until September 26, 1910, on account of appellant not paying fees.” Notwithstanding this memorandum, it is shown without contradiction that the clerk received and retained the transcript, as well as the original papers, and $2.50 in fees June 8, 1910, and that he'filed the transcript in his office the same day. There is nothing to show that he demanded more fees or that appellant knew of a purpose on his part to refuse to docket the case. His duties are prescribed by statute as follows: “The clerk, on receiving such transcript and other papers as aforesaid, shall file the same and docket the appeal.” Code, sec. 1009. The clerk’s duty to docket the appeal was the same as his duty to file the papers. By neglecting his duty and by making a docket entry to that effect, he did not prevent. the district court from acquiring jurisdiction. Error does not appear in the record.

Affirmed.

Reese, C. J., Barnes and Fawcett, JJ., concur.

I/etton, Sedgwick and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.
#### § 29.2 Cooperative land management.

Cooperative agreements with persons for crop cultivation, haying, grazing, or the harvest of vegetative products, including plantlife, growing with or without cultivation on wildlife refuge areas may be executed on a share-in-kind basis when such agreements are in aid of or benefit to the wildlife management of the area.
§ 217.30 Specified activity and specified geographical region. ( a ) Regulations in this subpart apply only to Hilcorp LLC (Hilcorp) and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the areas outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to construction, maintenance, and operation of the Liberty Drilling and Production Island (LDPI) and associated infrastructure.
( b ) The taking of marine mammals by Hilcorp may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within the Beaufort Sea, Alaska.
Leif Eric Murr ay

3707 N County Rd 1050W Fairbanks, IN 47849 (812)

- 382

- 4675 Email: leifn640@yahoo.com Petition for exe mption/rulemaking: (petitioning for exemption under section 333) ; (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112

- 95 FEB 14, 2012, Section 333.) I hereby request an exemption so that I may operate a UAV/UAS (DJI S900, DJI F550) in a safe and logical manner for profit to include, but not be limited to: aerial photography, aeri al filming, agricultural inspections/monitoring, n ews coverage , and law e nforcement assistance. Before each flight I will ensure that the UAV/UAS is safe to operate by the use of checklists/visual inspection. Flight directly above people will be avoided. Flight directly above /in main streets, heavy traffic , highways, restricted airspaces, and/or any other locations that are restricted by law with parameters designated b y federal, state, or local law e nforcement agencies will be avoided and strictly prohibited from my UAV/UAS. I currently hold a private pilot license and a third class medical certificate. I will provide copies of my drivers license or any other documentation required to fulfill this exemption request. Thank you for consideration.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1659-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1659-DR), dated August 30, 2006, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 18, 2006.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective September 18, 2006. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA. 

[FR Doc. 06-8184 Filed 9-22-06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350),
the undersigned, George J. Longo, the Chief Financial Officer of The Quigley
Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his
knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                                     /s/ George J. Longo
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     George J. Longo
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     March 30, 2004
```